SUCCESSION CASES

TABLE OF CONTENTS General Provisions; Rules of Court [Section 3, Rule 1; Sections 2, 16, Rule 3]; Section 119, CA 141; Arts. 1306, 1315 Rule 1, Section 3 - Cases governed. Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings (a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. X X X..(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Rule 3, Section 2 - Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Sec 119 of CA 141 - Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper , shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of 5 years from date of the conveyance Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. Limos v. Odones GR # 186979, August A request for admission is not intended to 11 2010 merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting pArtys 1 pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request, whose purpose is to establish said pArtys cause of action or defense. Reyes v. Enriquez GR # 162956, April Declaration of heirship should first be filed 10 1998 as a special proceeding before complaint 2 for reconveyance and partition is filed in ordinary court Ventura vs. Militante GR# 63145, Oct. 5 A dead person nor his estate cannot be a 1999 party plaintiff in a court action. Complaint is brought against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness 3 chargeable against said conjugal property, any judgment obtained thereby is void. The proper action should be in the form of a claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings. Edgardo Cruz vs. GR# 173292, Sept. 1 Heirs have acquired interest in the Oswaldo Cruz 2010 properties in litigation and became pArties 4 in interest in the case. Complaint filed by deceased can survive and substituted by heirs. Sumaljag v. Literato GR# 149787, June "legal representatives" refer to those 18 2008 authorized by law - the administrator, executor or guardian who, under the rule 5 on settlement of estate of deceased persons, is constituted to take over the estate of the deceased. DBP v. Gagarani GR# 172248, Sept. 17 Daughter and son-in-law of the patentees 2008 have the right to repurchase the property 6 because this would be "more in keeping with the spirit of the law. Balus v. Balus GR# 168970, Jan. 15 Deceased who lost ownership of the subject 2010 property during his lifetime, cannot pass 7 into the hands of compulsory heirs a parcel of land which is no longer formed part of his estate. 8 Arellano vs. Pascual GR# 189776, Dec. Rule on collation is applicable only when 15 2010 there is compulsory heir. Siblings are not compulsory heirs. Decedent not having left any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime, he was at liberty to donate all his properties, even if nothing was left for his

siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. Acap vs. CA 9 GR# 118114, 1995 7 Ownership and real rights are acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or process. A stranger or non co-heir cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document Heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their GR# 118248, April. 5, predecessor-in-interest because they have 2000 inherited the property subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor Dec

10

DKC Holdings vs. CA

Corp.

Supplement Yaptinchay Rosario 12

Del GR# 124320, March 2 Declaration of heirship can be made only in 1999 a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. Alvarez v. IAC GR# 68053, May 7 Hereditary estates are always liable in 13 1990 their totality for the payments of the debts of the estate. Bonilla vs. Barcena GR # L-41715, June 18 Deceaseds claim was transmitted to heris 14 upon his death. Arriola v. Arriola GR# 177703, Jan. 28 Family Home is shielded from immediate 15 2008 partition. Oscar Reyes v. RTC GR# 165744, Aug. 11 Without the settlement of Anastacia's Makati, Rodrigo reyes 2008 estate, there can be no definite pArtition 16 and distribution of the estate to the heirs. Without the pArtition and distribution, there can be no registration of the transfer Puno v. Puno GR# 177066, Sept. 11 Recognition as heir, participation in the Enterprises 2009 settlement of estate and registration in the 17 books of the corporation is needed before an heir acquire shares of decedent Testamentary Succession; Wills In General; Article 2010; Estate Taxation; Article 1378 Vitug vs. Court of GR# 82027, Mar. 29 Survivorship agreement is valid. The Appeals conveyance is not a will because in a will, a person disposes of his property. In this 18 case, the bank account is part of the conjugal funds. Neither is the agreement a donation inter vivos because it takes effect after death. Sicad vs. CA GR# 125888, Aug. 13 A donation which purports to be one inter vivos but withholds from the donee the right 19 to dispose of the donated property during the donor's lifetime is in truth one mortis causa. Aluad v. Aluad GR# 176943, Oct. 17, Donation although worded as inter vivos is 2008 considered as mortis causa when the donor 20 do not intend to transfer ownership during his lifetime. Notarial/Formal/Ordinary Will; Article 809 Suroza vs. Honrado AM No. 2026-CFI, Dec. Will should be executed in a language 19, 1981 known to the testator, reading and 21 translation into Filipino language is not enough. Echavez vs. Dozen GR# 192916, Oct. 11 Attestation and acknowledgment are cons. 2010 embodied in two separate provisions of the 22 CC (Arts 805 and 806, respectively) indicates that the law contemplates two distinct acts that serve different purposes. Azuela v. CA GR#122880, April. 12, the total number of pages, and whether all 2006 persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially 23 appear in the attestation clause, being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings Lee v. Tambago A.C. No. 5281, Feb. 12, Lawyer will be guilty of professional 24 2008 misconduct for notarizing a spurious will. 25 Guerrero v. Bihis GR#174144, April. 17, 2007 Notary public who was acting outside the place of his commission, this did not satisfy Art 806. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of

v.

his jurisdiction. Celada v. Abena GR# 145545, June. 30, 2008

26

27

Javellana Ledesma Cruz vs. Villasor

vs.

No. L-7179, June 30, 1955 No. L-32213, Nov. 26, 1973

28 Garcia vs. Vasquez 29 Alvarado vs. Gaviola 30 No. L-26615, April 30, 1970 GR # 74695, Sept. 14, 1993

Testator may be admitted to be physically weak but it does not necessarily follow that she was not of sound mind. - Error in the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will. WN the notary signed the certification of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil. notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. Absence of proof that it was read to the deceased twice, the will was NOT duly executed. formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the testators will. Reading contents of will aloud with the witnesses following the reading is substantial compliance. Generally, date in a holographic will should include the day, month, and year of its execution. However, when there is no appearance of fraud, bad faith, undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the will is established, probate should be allowed based on principle of substantial compliance. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. In holographic will, substitution of original heir not authenticated by full signature will void the contract and original will cannot be probated, given efficacy to the seeming change of mind of testator. lack of authentication on the alterations will only result in disallowance of such changes. the object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court. mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law although it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter's property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. reprobate of a will shall "cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction even if not yet probated in

Holographic Will Roxas vs. De Jesus

No. L-38338, Jan. 28, 1985

31

Labrador vs. CA 32 Kalaw vs. Relova (SC is wrong) 33 Ajero vs. CA Codoy vs. Calugay 35 Rodelas vs. Aranza 36 Seangio v. Reyes 37

GR# 83843-44, April. 5, 1990

No. L-40207, Sept. 28, 1984

34

GR# 106720, Sept. 15, 1994 GR# 123486, Aug. 12, 1999

No. L-58509, Dec. 7, 1982

GR # 140371-72, Nov. 27, 2006

Probate Vda. De Perez 38 Tolete 39 Palaganas Palaganas

vs. v.

GR# 76714, June 2, 1994 GR # 169144, Jan. 26, 2011

the place where it is executed. Heirs of Sandejas vs. Lina 40 GR # 141634, Feb. 5, 2001 Reference to judicial approval, however, cannot adversely affect the substantive rights of heirs to dispose of their own pro indiviso shares in the co-heirship or coownership.

Supplement Abangan Abangan

will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation clause 41 and is signed also at the bottom by the three witnesses, it is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and the witnesses, or be paged. Caneda vs. CA GR# 103554, May. 28, Attestation clause that does not state that 1993 witnesses attest and subscribe in the 41 presence of the testator and of one another will inviolate the will. Codicils and Incorporation by Reference; Revocation [Wills & Testamentary Dispositions] Adriana Maloto vs. No. L 76464, Feb. 29, Theres animus but no corpus. The intention CA, 1988 to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, 42 obliterating, or cancelling the will be carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. Gago vs. Mamuyac, No. L 26317, Jan. 29, Where a will which cannot be found is 1927 shown to have been in the possession of the testator, when last seen, the presumption 43 is, in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed. Molo vs. Molo, No. L 2538, Sept. 21, Invalidity of 2nd will which revoked 1st will 1951 can still give effect to 1st will under the 44 principle of dependent relative revocation, predicated on the testator' intention not to die intestate Diaz vs. De Leon, No. L 17714. May. 31, destruction of a will animo revocandi 45 1922 constitutes, in itself, a sufficient revocation. Republication and Revival of Wills; Disallowance of Wills Dorotheo vs. CA, GR# 108581, Dec. 8, it does not necessarily follow that an 1999 extrinsically valid last will and testament is 46 always intrinsically valid. Unlawful provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect. Institution of Heirs Reyes vs. Baretto GR # L17818, Jan. 25, Institution to an heir believed to be a Datu 1967 daughter who happened to be not is still 47 valid. Testator is at liberty to assign the free portion of his estate to whomsoever he chose. Preterition; Disinhertance Aznar vs. Duncan, GR # L 24365, June 30, Renvoi Doctrine 48 1966 Acain vs. IAC GR # L 72706, Oct. 27, adopted child was preterited but not the 48 1987 wife. A wife is not a compulsory heir in the direct line so she cannot be preterited. Nuguid vs. Nuguid GR # L 23445, June 23, Institution of the sister as universal heir, 50 1966 preteriting parents is void. Seangio v. Reyes GR # 14037172, Nov. See above 51 27, 2006 Santos vs. GR # L 22797, Sept. the intentions of the testatrix had been Buenaventura 22, 1966 fulfilled, her will had been admitted and 52 allowed probate within a reasonably short period, and the disposition of her property can now be effected.

vs.

GR # 13431, Nov. 12, 1919

Substitution of Heirs; Vulgar & Fideicommissary Substitution; Conditional & Term Disposition Palacios vs. Ramirez GR # L- 27952, Feb. fideicommissary substitution should not go 15, 1992 beyond one degree from the heir originaly 53 instituted." PCIB vs. Escolin 54 Rabadilla vs. Court of Appeals 55 GR# 113725, June 29, 2000 GR# L-27860, Mar. 29, 1974 no fideicommissary substitution bec. there was no obligation upon the husband to preserve and transmit the prop. to the brothers and sisters of the wife as seen in his authority to sell the property Without the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the preservation of the property and its transmission to the second heir, there is no fideicommissary substitution compulsory heir can not be deprived of her share in the estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law. Estranged wife remained to be a legal heir, mere estrangement not being a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse. the legal title and dominion, even though under a condition, reside to reservista while he lives. Reservista's right of ownership is registrable. Since it was the reservee who survived the reservor, it was then the reservees buyer who would acquire absolute ownership. reservable properties should be inherited by all the nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus. She could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein. Upon the death of the reservista, the reservatario nearest to the prepositus becomes, automatically and by operation of law, the owner of the reservable property. error to require a son-in-law of the decedent to be included in the collation as he is not a compulsory heir

Legitime Francisco 56 Francisco-Alfonso Capitle v. Elbambuena and Olar

vs.

GR# 138774, March 8, 2001 GR# 169193, Nov. 30, 2006

57

Reserva Edroso vs. Sablan 58 Sienes vs. Esparcia 59 Gonzales vs. CFI 60

GR # L-6878, Sept. 13, 1913 GR #L-12957, 24, 1961 March

GR #L-34395, May 19, 1981

Cano vs. Director 61 Vizconde v. CA (bad case) did not see 62 that it was a case of reserve troncal) Disinheritance Seangio v. Reyes 63

GR #L-10701, Jan. 16, 1959 GR# 118449, Feb. 11, 1998

GR# 140371-72, Nov. 27, 2006 Legal or Intestate Succession [Arts. 960-1014] General Provision Bagunu vs. Piedad, GR# 140975, Dec. 8, 2000

See above

Among collateral relatives, except only in the case of nephews and nieces of the decedent concurring with their uncles or 64 aunts, the rule of proximity, is applicable The right of representation does not apply to "others collateral relatives within the fifth civil degree. Right of Representation (See also Domestic Adoption Act) Sayson vs. CA, GR# 8922425, Jan. 23, While it is true that the adopted child shall 1992 be deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as the 65 latter, these rights do not include the right of representation Order of Intestate Succession Descending Direct Line 66 Sayson vs. CA, GR# 89224-25, Jan. 23, 1992

a person's love descends first to his children and grandchildren before it ascends to his parents and thereafter spreads among his

collateral relatives. Ascending Direct Line Illegitimate Children Corpus vs. Corpus 67 Leonardo vs. CA 68 Diaz vs. IAC 68 70 Diaz vs. IAC Suntay v. Suntay GR #L-51263, 28, 1983 GR #L-66574, 17, 1987 Feb.

GR # L-22469, Oct. 23, 1978

June

an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child An illegitimate cannot, by right of representation, claim a share of the estate left by the legitimate relatives left by his father The right of representation is not available to illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent. Order of preference is not absolute in the designation of administrator. Selection of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. The attendant facts and circumstances of this case necessitate, at the least, a joint administration by both respondent and petitioner, even if the latter is an illegitimate child. A right of redemption arose in favor of a daughter-in-law who was survived by his husband, making her a co-owner in the inheritance of his mother-in-law mother who if duly authorized by the courts, could validly sell his share in the property The determination of whether the relationship is of the full or half-blood is important only to determine the extent of the share of the survivors, since being halfblood is immaterial to determine his right to the inheritance as a 3rd degree relative. Brothers & sisters are precluded from inheriting the estate of their brother, when decedent have an illegitimate child.

GR #L-66574, Feb. 21, 1990 GR # 183053, June 16, 2010

71

Surviving Spouse Verdad vs. CA 72 73 Cabales v. CA

GR# 109972, April. 29, 1996 GR# 162421, Aug. 31, 2007 GR# 116775, 22, 1998 Jan.

Collateral Relatives Heirs of Uriarte vs. CA 74

Gonzales vs. CA 75 The State Republic vs. CA 76

GR# 117740, Oct. 30, 1998

Private respondent's belated assertion of her right over the escheated properties militates against recovery. Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Succession [Arts. 1015 -1105] Right of Accretion Parish Priest of GR# L-22036, April In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, Victoria, Tarlac vs. 30, 1979 devisee or legatee must be living at the 77 Rigor moment the succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper Acceptance and Repudiation of Inheritance Guy v. CA GR# 163707, Sept. 78 15, 2006 Executors and Administrators; Collation & Donation [725-773]; See also Art. 1448 NCC Zaragoza vs. CA GR# 106401, Sept. partition inter vivos may be done for as long 79 29, 2000 as legitimes are not prejudiced & they should be collated in the determination of legitimes Nazareno vs. CA GR# 138842, Oct. There is also an implied trust when a 18, 2000 donation is made to a person but it appears that although the legal estate is transmitted 80 to the donee, he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a part thereof. this is subject to collation 81 Vizconde vs. CA GR# 118449, Feb. Collation of the Paraaque property is 11, 1998 improper for, to repeat, collation covers only properties gratuitously given by the

GR# 143483, Jan. 31, 2002

decedent during his lifetime to his compulsory heirs Ty v. Ty GR# 165696, April. ild, legitimate or illegitimate, of one paying 30, 2008 the price of the sale, NO TRUST IS IMPLIED BY LAW, it being disputably presumed that 82 there is a gift in favor of the child. However, here there is no proof that the properties are really donated to the deceased son. Arellano v. Pascual GR # 189776, Dec. Rule on collation is applicable only when 15, 2010 there is compulsory heir. Siblings are not compulsory heirs. Decedent not having left 83 any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime, he was at liberty to donate all his properties, even if nothing was left for his siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. Partition and Distribution of the Estate; Effect of Partition; Rescission 0061nd Nullity of Partition Noceda vs. CA GR# 119730, Sept. There is no co-ownership where portion 2, 1999 owned is correctly determined and identifiable, though not technically 84 described, or that said portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does not make said portions less determinable or identifiable. Silverio v. CA GR# 178933, Sept. Until the estate is partitioned, each heir only 16, 2009 has an inchoate right to the properties of the 85 estate, such that no heir may lay claim on a particular property. Avelino vs. CA GR# 115181, March When a person dies without leaving pending 31, 2000 obligations, his heirs, are not required to submit the property for judicial 86 administration, nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the court. Zaragoza vs. CA GR# 106401, Sept. See above 87 29, 2000 Arrogante v. Deliarte GR# 152132, July 24, private deed of sale does not equate to an 2007 oral partition by an act inter vivos. Besides, 88 partition of property representing future inheritance cannot be made effective during the lifetime of its owner Orendain Jr. vs. GR# 168660/ June testatrixs large landholdings cannot be Rodriguez 30, 2009 subjected indefinitely to a trust because the 89 ownership thereof would then effectively remain with her even in the afterlife. Alfonso v. Andres GR # 166236, July Poverty is not a justification for delaying a 90 29, 2010 case